From: | Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck |
Date: | 2011-03-29 16:12:25 |
Message-ID: | 4D9204E9.1060403@krogh.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 2011-03-29 16:16, Jeff wrote:
> halt for 0.5-2 seconds, then resume. The fix we're going to do is
> replace each drive in order with the rebuild occuring between each.
> Then we do a security erase to reset the drive back to completely
> empty (including the "spare" blocks kept around for writes).
Are you replacing the drives with new once, or just secure-erase and
back in?
What kind of numbers are you drawing out of smartmontools in usage figures?
(Also seeing some write-stalls here, on 24 Raid50 volumes of x25m's, and
have been planning to cycle drives for quite some time, without actually
getting to it.
> Now that all sounds awful and horrible until you get to overall
> performance, especially with reads - you are looking at 20k random
> reads per second with a few disks. Adding in writes does kick it
> down a noch, but you're still looking at 10k+ iops. That is the
> current trade off.
Thats also my experience.
--
Jesper
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | gnuoytr | 2011-03-29 16:48:04 | Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck |
Previous Message | Strange, John W | 2011-03-29 15:32:16 | Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck |